I'd like to highlight a phrase in the summary here that really stuck out to me. As with some other commenters, it does seem that the judge is not particularly inclined in this argument to side with Epic because it is in the mobile gaming arena, but...
> Fortnite aside, though, Judge Rogers also said she was inclined to agree with Epic's assertion that "there is an uproar in the marketplace about the lack of competition for [distribution of] iPhone apps. You read the papers, I read the papers, it's there." That said, Judge Rogers also suggested this specific case might not be the right one to make that argument, "given the amount of competition for mobile games."
While it looks like this is going to a jury trial, it does leave open a hole for a different kind of app (lets say spotify or tinder (match group)) to try and take a similar argument to court within a different market sector.
I don’t see that. Changing laws because of “uproar in the market” is normal and a good thing (laws serve people, not the other way around), so yes, things may change there.
I also don’t see a need for a judge to signal to lawmakers that laws need to change/be created to react to that uproar. The ball already is rolling there (slowly, as it should. A big benefit of government is that it provides stability)
Reading through the article it seems that it's likely, as expected, that Epic will not win in this case. I'm guessing that the outcome where Fortnite (and Epic's developer account) are not brought back, but Unreal Engine development is kept, is the most likely. In any case the ruling looks like it will happen in a few days so it'll be interesting to see the real outcome and if it's different than expected.
This point is particularly interesting:
> Going forward, though, Rogers said that she felt "this case should be tried to a jury... I think it's important enough to understand what real people think. Do these security issues concern people or not? Are the concerns of the developers incredibly important? I think many people would feel it is. I do think that this is something for which jury insights would be important. Otherwise it's just one more judge."
How would it (this or another case) be brought to a jury? I'm asking as I don't know how this sort of thing might happen - can it just be "requested" by one of the two sides, or are there other conditions that need to be fulfilled too?
If the judge were on HN she would get downvoted to oblivion for making the following argument.
> "If we look at this plaintiff and industry, walled gardens have existed for decades, Nintendo has had a walled garden. Sony has had a walled garden. Microsoft has had a walled garden... In this particular industry, what Apple is doing is not much different... It's hard to ignore the economics of the industry, which is what [Epic is] asking me to do."
> Fortnite aside, though, Judge Rogers also said she was inclined to agree with Epic's assertion that "there is an uproar in the marketplace about the lack of competition for [distribution of] iPhone apps. You read the papers, I read the papers, it's there." That said, Judge Rogers also suggested this specific case might not be the right one to make that argument, "given the amount of competition for mobile games."
While it looks like this is going to a jury trial, it does leave open a hole for a different kind of app (lets say spotify or tinder (match group)) to try and take a similar argument to court within a different market sector.